Psychological barriers to the accurate scientific study of individual/social behavior

Kingsley U. Omoyibo1, Anthony Afe. Asekhauno2
1University of Benin, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Benin City, Edo State, Nigeria 2University of Benin, Faculty of Arts, Department of Philosophy, Benin City, Edo State, Nigeria

Korespondenční autor: Kingsley U. Omoyibo (;

ISSN 1804-7181 (On-line)

Full verze:
Full version

Submitted:18. 7. 2015
Accepted: 5. 5. 2016
Published online: 30. 6. 2016


Humans could manifest behavioral patterns that may not be a true reflection of their inner will, in this sense, man is a being that doubts, thinks, wills, intends, desires, and is dynamically rational. How do these features apply in the predictability of man? In short, what is the depth and reliability of our prying into an individual’s will? Prominently, there are two conflicting accounts on whether or not a scientific study of human social behavior is possible, and these are based on four basic claims: one, that there are regularities in human behaviors; two, that the world is rule-governed and humans are part of that world; three, following Spencer and Comte, like the study of parts and their function in an organism, that humans are part of a larger society and therefore can be functionally studied; and four, following Pratt, that human social behavior can be studied like animals’ in characteristic situations. Yet, man is a rational/inte­lligent and dynamic being and many believe he is free: has a will to or not to act – which Nietzsche holds to be absolute. However, whether humans status of will is ontology-based or psychological-based or not, the fact remains that human actions are factual, empirical, experiential and, therefore, also scientific. This paper presented the arguments, indicated their interplay with one another and gleaned their tenability on the predictability or scientific study of man. This study was necessary since every society (particularly Africa)desires the ideals of order, peace and development; therefore, this article ascertained the depth of generalizations about man that could help him to better socialized and conform with societal expectations.

Keywords: willing; desiring; intention; action; science; methodology; deception


1. Agbonifoh BA, Yomere GO (1999). Research Methodology. Benin: University Press.

2. Aigbodioh JA (1997). Philosophy of Science: Issues and Problems. Ibadan: Hope Publications.

3. Blackburn S (1996). Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

4. Broom L, Selznick P (eds) (1973). Sociology. 5th ed. New York: Harper and Row Pub.

5. Cuber JF (1968). Sociology. New York: Meredith Publications.

6. Davidson D (1985). On the very idea of conceptual scheme. In: Rajchman J, West C (eds). Post-Analytic Philosophy. New York: Columbia University Press.

7. Dubrovsky D (1983). The Problem of the Ideal. Moscow: Progress Publishers.

8. Feyerbend P (1993). Farewell to Reason. London: Verso.

9. Giddings FH (1924). The Scientific Study of Human Society. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

10. Graham G (1996). Philosophy of Mind: An Introduction. Cambridge: Blackwell Books Publications Inc.

11. Haldane ES, Ross GTR (1960). The Philosophical Works of Descartes vol. 1. London: Cambridge University Press.

12. Hume D (1999). An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Oxford University Press, pp. 147–164.

13. Kuhn T (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Discussed in: Aigbodioh JA op. cit. 1997, pp. 69–74.

14. MacDonald G, Pettit P (1981). Semantics and Social Science. London: RKP.

15. Mead GH (1934). Mind, self, and society. Discussed in: Broom L, Selznick P (eds). Sociology. 5th ed. New York: Harper and Row Pub.; 1973, p. 105.

16. Meyers G (1960). Self. New York: Western Publishing Company.

17. Murray M (1938). What is Action? A Symposium by Aristotelian Society, Supplementary vol. XVII.

18. Nagel E (1961). The Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation. New York: Harcourt Brace & World Inc.

19. Pierson J, Thomas M (2010). Dictionary of Social Work. New York: McGraw-Hill.

20. Popper K (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson.

21. Pratt V (1975). A biological approach to sociological functionalism. Inquiry. 18: 371–389.

22. Pritchard EA (1968). Acting, willing, desiring. In: White A (ed.). The Philosophy of Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 59–69.

23. Rorty R (1980). Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

24. Slavickiene A, Ciuleviciene V (2014). Comparative Assessment of Environmental Taxes in the European Union States. European Scientific Journal. 10(14): 1–12.

Warning: readfile( [function.readfile]: failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 403 Forbidden in /var/www/journal-of-nursing-social-studies-public-health-and-rehabilitation/templates/templates.php on line 206